Hearod v. Franklin

Hearod v. Franklin

Plaintiff:	Bennie Hearod
Defendant:	Joanna Z Franklin
Case Number:	5:2009cv00330
Filed:	October 27, 2009
Court:	U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Office:	Pine Bluff Office
County:	Jefferson
Presiding Judge:	James M. Moody
Presiding Judge:	J. Thomas Ray
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 23, 2009	Filing 8 JUDGMENT re 7 Order on Report and Recommendations; the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; the dismissal consitutes a "strike" as defined by 28 USC 1915(g); the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an ifp appeal from this Judgment and the accompanying Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 12/23/09. (mkf)
December 2, 2009	Filing 5 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending this action § 1983 action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to the screening function mandanted by 28 U.S.C. § 191 5A; recommending the dismissal of this action constitute a strike, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and recommending the Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order and Judgment adopting this Recommended Disposition would not be taken in good faith. Objections to R&R due 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 12/2/09. (hph)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 23, 2009

Filing 8 JUDGMENT re 7 Order on Report and Recommendations; the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; the dismissal consitutes a "strike" as defined by 28 USC 1915(g); the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an ifp appeal from this Judgment and the accompanying Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 12/23/09. (mkf)

December 2, 2009

Filing 5 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending this action § 1983 action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to the screening function mandanted by 28 U.S.C. § 191 5A; recommending the dismissal of this action constitute a strike, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and recommending the Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order and Judgment adopting this Recommended Disposition would not be taken in good faith. Objections to R&R due 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 12/2/09. (hph)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hearod v. Franklin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bennie Hearod
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Joanna Z Franklin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?